Opinion
April 17, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Meyerson, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence is legally insufficient to support his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Bynum, 70 N.Y.2d 858; People v Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it is legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The People's evidence establishes that the defendant fired a handgun, that he was the only person in possession of a handgun at the time of the incident, and that the victim was found to have suffered two gunshot wounds to the head. This evidence establishes that the defendant was in possession of a loaded firearm within the meaning of Penal Law § 265.00 (15) (see, People v Cavines, 70 N.Y.2d 882; People v Shaffer, 66 N.Y.2d 663; People v Aguilar, 202 A.D.2d 512; see also, People v McGrew, 150 A.D.2d 729). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt is not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15).
The sentence that was imposed is not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05) or without merit. Ritter, J.P., Altman, Hart and Goldstein, JJ., concur.